70% of active military oppose ground troops in Iraq because they distrust their commander-in-chief

A fascinating survey by Military Times shows that as many as 70% of the military’s rank and file are opposed to deploying U.S. combat troops to Iraq and Syria to combat the scourge of the Islamic State (IS) or ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Levant) — in spite of recommendations by top military leaders, including Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (See “U.S. military does not support Commander-In-Chief Barack Obama“)

That is not because active members of the U.S. military are shirking their duty. Rather, their opposition to “boots on the ground” in Iraq is due to their doubts about their commander in chief, President Barack Obama.

Andrew Tilghman, et al., report for Military Times, Sept. 29, 2014, that as the tide of war rises again in the Middle East, the military’s rank and file are mostly opposed to expanding the new mission in Iraq and Syria to include sending a large number of U.S. ground troops into combat, according to a Military Times survey of active-duty members.

The survey was conducted online this summer and concluded in August just as President Obama was ramping up the air campaign against the Islamic State group.

On the surface, troops appear to support Obama’s repeated vows not to let the U.S. military get “dragged into another ground war” in Iraq. Yet at the same time, the views of many service members are shaped bya deep ambivalence about this commander in chief and questions about his ability to lead the nation through a major war, according to the survey and interviews.

The reader survey asked more than 2,200 active-duty troops this question: “In your opinion, do you think the U.S. military should send a substantial number of combat troops to Iraq to support the Iraqi security forces?” Slightly more than 70% responded: “No.”

“It’s their country, it’s their business. I don’t think major ‘boots on the ground’ is the right answer,” said one Army infantry officer and prior-enlisted soldier who deployed to Iraq three times. He responded to the survey and an interview request but, like several other service members in this story, asked not to be named because he is not authorized to discuss high-level military policy.

Peter Feaver, a professor and military expert at Duke University, said that lack of support for Obama may underpin some service members’ views on Iraq today. In an interview after reviewing the results of the Military Times poll, Feaver said, “It’s very hard to mobilize the military to follow an uncertain trumpet. If they have doubts about the commander in chief, they are going to have doubts about a major military operation. It is possible that the military is making a judgment that while a different president might be committed to a major operation, this president is not — so there is no reason to do one.”

As the U.S. expands that air war into Syria and increases the number of U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq — topping more than 1,700 total — service members say their feelings about the crisis and the U.S. response to it have intensified.

In barracks and staff offices, on smoke breaks and over after-hours beers, troops’ conversations about Iraq have shifted abruptly from reflections on the past to questions about the future that are fraught with concerns about the wisdom and scope of new missions. Troops are raising new questions about why the U.S. withdrew from Iraq in 2011, what went wrong and why.

Many simply wonder why anyone should think the long-term outcome will be any different this time. “It’s kind of futile in the end — regardless of how well we do our job, the Iraqi government isn’t going to be able to hold up,” Marine 2nd Lt. Christopher Fox said.

And many share the views of one Navy hospital corpsman second class at Camp Pendleton, California, who said his multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have taken a toll on him mentally, physically and personally. “We’re burned out,” he said.

Other findings by the Military Times survey include:

1. Opponents of an expanded mission fall into two camps:

Some troops think the U.S. should simply stay out of the conflagration engulfing the Middle East.

Others take a more nuanced view. One Air Force lieutenant colonel said he supports taking the fight to the Islamic State militants, even if that involves a large number of U.S. combat troops. But he worries that the country’s leadership will not completely see the mission through. “If we do it halfheartedly, we shouldn’t do it at all,” he said, adding that America should expand its military mission in Iraq “only if we’re committed to complete victory. I’m not hearing that now. There’s political fear of blowback for making such a declaration. War, as ugly as it is, should be done in a very overwhelming and clear fashion.”

2. Troops intuitively understand that final decisions ultimately land on Obama’s desk. And support for Obama within the military — never especially high — has dropped significantly since he took office, according to the Military Times survey — from 35% of service members in 2009 who approved of the way Obama was “handling of his job as commander in chief,” to below 15%this year.

3. Questions and pessimism about the 8-year Iraq War that supposedly ended in 2011: Only 30% of active-duty troops surveyed say the Iraq War was “very successful” or “somewhat successful” — down from about 64% who had expressed positive views in a similarly worded question in 2011 as the war was winding down. Marine Sgt. Darrell Priestley, 39, a combat engineer who deployed to Iraq in 2009, said,“It’s a kick in the rear because [the Iraqi extremists] are making a comeback and everything I did was for naught. … Those are some of the thoughts that go through my head.” Questions about the value of Iraq War reach the highest levels of the military command. Responding to a question about morale in a recent interview, Marine Gen. John Kelly said, “It’s certainly an emotional moment for anyone who has ever been there. I’d say to Marines: ‘We don’t get a vote. We go where the nation sends us. Our job is to win — we won.’ ”

Service members are not questioning the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 or the execution of the 8-year combat operation. Instead, they focus their pessimism on the stewardship of Iraq after U.S. troops withdrew in 2011 — both by the Iraqi government as well as the Obama administration, which has essentially taken a hands-off approach to Iraq for nearly three years. Professor Feaver said,“If you piece all of those together, what you get is a military viewpoint something like the following: We left something like success behind, and since then events since then have wrecked that. The majority of the military would probably reject the interpretation that, ‘Oh, this was a chimera in 2011, this was fake success.’ I think they would say ‘No, it was real, but it was undone.’ ”

4. At the center of those debates is the commander in chief, and renewed criticism of Obama for his decision to withdraw completely in 2011. Some military leaders had wanted to keep a residual force of 10,000 to 20,000 troops. At the time, that decision was driven by the Iraq parliament’s refusal to approve a status of forces agreement granting legal protections to U.S. troops. Nevertheless, many service members believe the current crisis in Iraq may have been avoided if Obama was more aggressive about securing approval for a substantive residual U.S. force beyond 2011.Army Capt. Eric Hatch, a logistics officer at Fort Bliss, Texas, said, “I know there are other political issues, but for our job, we should have stayed until it was secure. I think we were close to being done [in 2011], but I think we could have stayed another year or two. If you’re going to commit troops to do a mission, you should stay until the mission is complete.”

5. Active-duty members may be more opposed to sending troops back to Iraq compared with veterans of the Iraq War who have left the military, said Yinon Weiss, founder of Rally Point, an online military community where hundreds of members are involved in various discussions about the U.S. military action in Iraq and now Syria. Weiss, a former Army Special Forces officer, said, “Most veterans we see on [Rally Point] are very supportive of boots on the ground. I would say with service members, it is much more mixed, in that many question whether the U.S. military has the endurance to potentially open up a new ground front. But [for] those who were in Iraq … there’s this kind of notion of, ‘We don’t want our previous gains and losses to be in vain.’ ”

9 responses to “70% of active military oppose ground troops in Iraq because they distrust their commander-in-chief”

Reblogged this on Fellowship of the Minds and commented:
The Secret Service, an elite corps of men and women sworn to take a bullet for the president, is in disarray. Reportedly, the Department of Homeland Security, too, is in disarray. The latest is a survey of active military service members which found that a majority (more than 70%) oppose combat “boots on the ground” in Iraq, not because they don’t want to fight, but because they have grave doubts about their commander in chief. All signs of an administration that is falling apart at the seams.

I don’t think that putting US or NATO ground combat forces on the ground in Iraq or Syria is a practical thing to do. They would be denounced as “occupiers” and would find it difficult to operate in the rural areas where most of the fighting will take place. Ground combat forces should be from Moslem countries, preferably Arabs and Kurds. I don’t think Turkish ground forces would be useful either – to much animosity based on previous Turkish occupation of the area.

We can, and should, however, provide air support, logistics and advisors to the ground troops engaged. Yes, this means having people wearing boots on the ground. But those people will not killing Arabs at close range or attacking villages on the ground. They will be armed, of course, and will defend themselves if attacked. But a 6-man Special Ops team on a hilltop directing air/artillery support is not the same thing as an infantry platoon raiding village.

As far as confidence in Obama goes, NOBODY trusts him to keep his word or to lead effectively. His convictions are deeply held – until the next poll comes out. And he does not motivate troops the way GWB did. The troops know Obama and that he is not on their side.

If you want to understand how he troops feel about Obama as compared to GW Bush, just look at video clips showing the in the presence of the troops. Obama, dressed in a tailored suit, enters the room with an entourage which insulates him from direct contact. He mounts a platform in front of a bunch of selected people who would obviously rather be somewhere else. Then he delivers a canned lecture, receives polite applause from the troops who know their bosses are watching their reaction. Then he gets off the stage and out of the building s soon as possible.

Bush, on the other hand, would arrive in casual clothing (or a flight suit), mingle with the troops, chatting and posing for pictures. He obviously enjoyed being with the troops and they enjoyed being with him. The picture of him carrying a turkey into the mess hall in Iraq was a stroke of genius. It told the troops, “This guy actually likes us.” It showed in his face and attitude and in the attitude of the troops who clustered around him. Even now, when GWB is retired and will never run for office again, he spends a great deal of time working with wounded warriors, while Obama works to cut pensions and benefits for current, retired and disabled military people. The troops know who is on their side and who isn’t.